Maybe the item’s cutesy title (“Latest Word on the Trail? I Take It Back”) made potential readers believe that it would be a puff piece. Maybe it was management’s odd decision to print Peters’ piece on a Monday instead of a Sunday where it arguably belonged. Maybe the blowback from President Obama’s painfully revealing “you didn’t build that” statement on July 13 in Roanoke, Virginia, monopolized the attention of those who would otherwise have expressed outrage over what Peters revealed.

Those three explanations border on being plausible excuses. A fourth, that nobody cares about what’s in the Times any more, is clever but obviously unsatisfying, despite the newspaper’s roughly 25 percent daily and 30 percent Sunday print circulation declines, even with more generous definitions of “circulation,” in the past six years. The final alternative — that what Peters reported is so understood to be the way it is in the world of alleged journalism that it wasn’t really noteworthy — is truly disturbing.

What Peters told readers, in essence, is that White House officials, the Obama administration in general, the Obama for America campaign, the campaign of presidential challenger Mitt Romney (though the evidence Peters provided is thin and seems to relate largely to the candidate’s family), and powerful Washington politicians on Capitol Hill are dictating what the press will print concerning their nonpublic statements and remarks — and that the press is, for the most part, acquiescing with little if any objection.

What Peters described has gotten the outraged attention of ideological opposites Joseph Farah and Ellen Ratner at WND.com — and that’s about it.

Consider the following excerpts from Peters’ production:

“[T]he (Obama campaign’s) press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.”

“Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House.”

“From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position.”

“It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly.” Ratner believes that the Associated Press and McClatchy are exceptions; I’m less than convinced.

“Many journalists spoke about the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them.”

The irony may not have escaped them, but integrity apparently has.

You know, if you’re going to have “the White House and political campaigns cleaning up quotes before reporters are even allowed to publish their stories,” as Ratner aptly describes it, why not just have potential “interview” subjects email what they want to “say” directly to newspaper and broadcast news editors and eliminate the middleman, i.e., the alleged journalists?

The Times itself is among the outfits which has given in to quote approval. A closer look at the particulars of their situation is warranted.

In an irony which should not escape readers, the story quotes Dean Baquet, currently the paper’s managing editor for news, moaning about how “maybe we have to push back harder.” Or maybe not, I guess.

In 2006, Baquet didn’t mind pushing back when he was editor at the Los Angeles Times, manning the ramparts, along with that paper’s publisher, Jeffrey Johnson, against its big, bad new owners at the Chicago-based Tribune Company. Parent company president Scott Smith demanded budget cuts, and gave the pair some time to put together a plan to deal with them. Demonstrating classic passive-aggressive behavior, Baquet and Johnson had Scott fly out to California to discuss their plan — which didn’t exist. Instead, they went public with their complaints and dared their boss to fire them. Three and eight weeks later, Johnson and Baquet, respectively, were shown the door.

If Dean Baquet really felt, as he said at the time, that the proposed cuts went “too far,” and that he couldn’t live with their outcome, he should have turned in his resignation when he learned of their inevitability. Instead, he played childish games of defiance.

The New York Times apparently didn’t mind Baquet’s insubordination, and rehired him in 2007. Perhaps its sympathetic coverage of the L.A. Times controversy sent him a signal that he’d be welcomed back when (not if) things didn’t work out, both steeling his juvenile resolve and arguably harming a competitor at the same time.

In February 2008, Baquet was editor on the John McCain-Vicki Iseman story. Wikipedia correctly notes that the story’s original version alleged “an improper relationship” between the two. AllahPundit at Hot Air described it as “a sex scandal that may not be a scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that may not be an ethics scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that was a genuine scandal 20 years ago.” In other words, it was non-story whose sole purpose was to sully the presumptive GOP nominee’s reputation in the minds of relatively disengaged voters.

In the wake of an out-of-court settlement with Ms. Iseman, the current online version of the story claims that “The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients.” Sure, guys; it was only the article’s stupid readers who thought that.

In sum, Baquet, a spoiled brat of an editor who couldn’t tolerate budget cuts and tried to ride out his direct disobedience of corporate orders, failed to put a stop to an obviously false report, and perhaps even actively encouraged it. Now he tolerates the daily insults to his craft engineered primarily by Obama administration and campaign apparatchiks whose only real short-term weapon is denial of access.

If the Times, with what remaining power and influence it has, began to document and report every instance where a sycophantic administration flunky demanded quote approval and it firmly refused, I’ll bet things would change — and quickly. But either Dean Baquet doesn’t have the stones to try, or for the time being would prefer not to.

Perhaps the day he and others in this sadly compromised calling will find the nerve to be journalists again will arrive on about January 21, 2013 — but only if someone other than Barack Obama begins to occupy the White House.

Along with having a decades-long career in accounting, finance, training and development, Tom Blumer has written for several national online publications primarily on business, economics, politics and media bias. He has had his own blog, BizzyBlog.com, since 2005, and has been a PJM contributor since 2008.

Click here to view the 56 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

56 Comments, 40 Threads

1.
stuart williamson

I join with your opinion that the report is astounding – to a degree that makes one wonder at the motivation. Is it quietly sending a message to the White House that, with the prospect of a loss for Obama, they shouldn’t count on mindless support? That the Mighty Gray Hooker wasn’t going to let herself be pushed around forever? That there is a limit to their obeisance? It must really stick in the craw of the arrogant NYT editors that they have to knuckle under to political underlings.

The Romney and Cheney references were strictly smoke – a phony effort to create the impression that the piece was impartially directed at both parties’ press offices. Nobody believes that the NYT would pay attention to any objection or editing by the RNC…ever.

why not just have potential “interview” subjects email what they want to “say” directly to newspaper and broadcast news editors and eliminate the middleman, i.e., the alleged journalists?
There’s the nutshell. Also, don’t forget that ‘alleged journalists’ pile high and stack deep, and are suitable for many defense and home-improvement projects. They often come well marinated, and burn well too.

It’s probably been around (informally) for years – decades even, but never written down or “enforced”. Even lower level agencies request to review quotes before publication. However, with the assumption that the agency media relations person can’t stop publication anyway. It’s usually a courtesy.

Normally it’s a balance of power: The reporters want access and the administration wants favorable coverage and accepts the (slightly) adversarial nature of the agreement. The current administration has changed that to a position of power over the reporters: knowing that access is more important to them than accuracy and that some reporters are (consciously or unconsciously) are favorable towards “Progressive” values and thus more willing to agree than if it were a Republican or conservative making the demands.

What I never understood is that journalists believe that they are equals in this. That is never how government officials think about them – they are tools to be manipulated, never equals in policy decisions. It hurts the ego to believe this, so they probably try to ignore it, but I’ve seen it.

Actually, I’ve worked for newspapers and they feel it is their duty to tell the public (whom they believe are dumber than a bag of rocks) WHAT to think.

We’ve all known for a long time that what passes for “news” anymore is nothing more than editorials dressed up as news. The attacks and protest against the “illegal” Bush war stopped in November of 08 and we’ve not heard a peep since. Same with the economy. When Bush was in office and we had near zero unemployment there was always a down side. Now that is truly in shambles the news does puff pieces.

Should Romney win the election they will once again go into relentless negative overdrive meant to crush the spirits of the American people. That isn’t journalism – that’s just the propaganda arm of the DNC.

The fact that democrat pols and administrations now have a de facto Soviet-style control over their media coverage was a long time in coming but it really sank home with me during the “town hall” lead up to Obamacare.

Judging from the many YouTube clips it was truly amazing how dumbfounded and offended these dem congresscritters consistently were at being asked straightforward questions by the peasantry and actually being expected to give straightforward answers, then being confronted with growing, noisy anger when they tried to patronizingly turn their heads with meaningless rhetoric.

I realized then that the whole ritual of press conferences and microphone-and-camera-lights-in-the-face was just meaningless ritual with journolistas pretending to ask questions and politicians pretending to give answers.

It’s all about “getting the get”. In recent years (presumably democrat) politicos have been demanding question and quote approval beforehand in granting interview requests and the MSM has been going along. Of course, for a Republican, any interview is a de facto debate, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of them have been playing the same game and getting away with it.

And yet Sarah Palin was expected to sit down for extended periods of time before hostile interviewers with no control over how her interviews were edited or presented to the public. The amazing thing is that she came off as well as she did, with really only a few bad answers which were thoroughly blown out of proportion by the media. How would Obama or Joe “Gaffe Machine” Biden do under those conditions?

Tom – Frankly, who cares what’s in the NYT or any of the other LSM outlets. For the most part, the LSM are not reporting news; they’re reporting anything to make O look good and Romney look bad irrespective of the veracity of the source and the story. (The LSM’s logo should be: All the news we can skew to fit our view.) My only hope is that by now the general public is well aware of the Leftist viewpoint of the LSM and dismisses what’s in the LSM as so much hogwash.

I think the alleged journalist in the mainstream media already do the bidding of this administration by crafting coverage and stories based on talking points supplied by the White House/DNC. Their stories all sound the same, in some cases, with identical wording. The same set of facts with the same conclusions. .Remember a few years back when they all started referring to Bush’s so-called lack of “gravitas”? They all started using that same phrase. I think the next big thing will the use of the “dog whistle” spewed out this week by Obama loyalist/ alleged journalist Andrea Mitchell. Poor lady she has become so obvious it’s laughable. The “dog whistle” term will be applied to any words issued by any Republican attempting to stir up the unwashed rabble via secret code that means racist, homophobic or anti-Obama sentiment. Watch for it.

“A fourth, that nobody cares about what’s in the Times any more, is clever but obviously unsatisfying, despite the newspaper’s roughly 25 percent daily and 30 percent Sunday print circulation declines, even with more generous definitions of “circulation,” in the past six years.”

More and more, I really believe fewer and fewer people care what The New York Times says and the drop in circulation proves it. There was a report that another liberal publication, Newsweek, will go all digital soon simply because it can’t afford to stay in print anymore. Both of these publications would do a lot better if they were a lot less biased. But since they ARE very biased, they keep losing readers, and rightfully so. To try and pass off biased editorials for “objective” journalism is getting old, and Americans are making their feelings known by NOT reading The New York Times.

The question is: what could a President Romney (and other Republicans) do about this situation? Is there enough of an alternate media to simply pull the passes of NYT, WaPo, LAT, ABC/CBS/NBC/NPR, etc. and give interviews and answer the questions of; the likes of FNC, NRO, AmSpec, PJM, et al?

If it were me, I’d be relieved to field tough questions, knowing that the questioner actually cared about the answers but would there be enough of an alternate media to simply ban and bypass the old lefty whores?

The problem with having such an obvious bias is that you eventually scrub away any readership that doesn’t agree with you and you also end up boring a significant percentage of those who do agree with you due to repetition, predictability and banality. That leaves only a small cadre of zealots who just love having their world view reinforced over and over again.

I don’t think you can say the same for more conservative leaning media and their audiences. A big difference is the greater use of logic and analysis. It would be interesting if a left leaning media group made a serious attempt to support their views in a similar manner – although the reason that they do not might be that there is just no raw material there to work with.

“The irony may not have escaped them, but integrity apparently has.”
What a strange juxtaposition, the J word and “integrity.”
We’ll get return to some modest level of objectivity when Bam and the dems are flushed in November. We’ll again see folks like Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink back demonstrating and having the front page coverage of their silliness in the NYT.

The Times, and other big media outlets, have only themselves to blame for the situation, because even as they marginalized their core reader based into people on the left, at the same time they can never satisfy the hardest core and most vocal of that group, who will still find some sort of thought crime to pin on the paper (recall Judith Miller and the Iraq and Plaimegate stories). Why that’s important is that in the age of digital media, Team Obama figured out early in their term that you can control the Times and other traditional media outlets by hinting that you’re going to favor other, even more pliable new media outlets. That was part of why Obama was calling on the Huffington Post’s White House correspondent Sam Stein in an early press conference.

So the Times goes left, but finds unless they play by Team Obama’s rules, they can be shut out of the inside access, and other places like the HuffPo, Politico or BuzzFeed can get the scoops (Team Romney can pull the same thing in part because Team Obama has set the ground rules, but also because by moving even further over to the left during the Pinch era, the Times and other big media outlets truly have made themselves virtually irrelevant on the right in the new media era, where the ability to finally bypass the traditional gatekeepers permits you to now wield a little control over their access).

Its been a con for a while now, you do realize that. The MSM is part of the power structure of this country and works with (synonym: conspires with) the powerful in this country, as an adjunct of the powerful against dupes.

We’re at the mercy of what I call the “Idiot Elite” — highly intelligent, well-credentialed people with gold-plated degrees and even Nobel prizes (think Obama, Krugman, Friedman, Geithner, Trichet in Europe) who don’t know their ___es from a hole in the ground and are, unfortunately, fully capable of destroying us without even realizing they’re doing it. Entrusting power to these people is an act of suicide for the West.

Elision is an important tool of propaganda. Some topics are just too important to ignore altogether, and being able to edit out crucial elements allows the news entertainer to cover it while at the same time not giving out components that might lead news consumers to arrive at an undesirable conclusion. Elision, among other methods such as ignoring something altogether, helps a mass opinion form that seems so real that it may as well be, which is fictive. Propaganda has always been to manufacture a fake fact that, in terms of its net political effect, is as good as a real one, and every bit as real.

I predict that when Mr. Obama is no longer in office much of the main stream media will suddenly and frantically discover any number of “facts” that have been ignored all this time in a desperate effort to regain some measure of relevancy.
I expect a feeding frenzy of details on his activities in college, the associated transcripts of same, and all sorts of sordid tidbits from his time in office, both as a Senator and in the White House.
Should be most entertaining in a sick perverted way, much like watching a massive train wreck.

Remember the huge, much-heralded, Times-led expedition to deepest, darkest Florida to ferret out the “truth” of Bush-Gore a few months after Bush was inaugurated? The truth all these self-worshiping uber-journos expected to find, of course, was that Gore had actually won. Amazing what news value that would have had, eh? The “smoking gun” that would have been the predicate for another Watergate orgy of demonstrations, court cases, leaks, etc. Instead, they found out that Bush had actually WON Florida by 537 votes, meaning that the entire “illegitimate president” narrative was false. Even bigger news value, by their own standards. Yet they buried the lede that Bush had won, fair and square, in graf 8, if I remember correctly. It was incredibly embarrassing from a professional perspective not to mention so many others. That was the day my last vestige of respect for the Times vaporized.

The truly hilarious thing is that my liberal friends believe that the MSM is HORRIBLY biased AGAINST Obama. If they were to print a story (with photos and links) like, “President Obama, photographed while killing an underage hooker after being live-webcast engaging her services claimed that he was strangling the 80 lb 14 year old girl in self-defense. Police concurred with this obvious explanation and have declined to make an arrest.” as a brutal, totally anti-Obama right-wing-biased hit piece that shouldn’t have never been published.

On a related tangent, can anyone think of an example in modern history, where a generally indepenent and “free” press/news media has become a willing accomplice to a centralized and increasingly powerful government? The transition from the sceptical-of-government-power news media of the ’60s and ’70s to the lapdog stenographer media of today has been both amazing and horrifying to watch. Would something like the Pentagon Papers be published by the New York Times today? Would the Washington Post publish anything like a Watergate story now? There’s plenty of material much worse out there nowadays, but it’s as if the professional heirs of Woodward and Bernstein have become Nixon.

can anyone think of an example in modern history, where a generally indepenent and “free” press/news media has become a willing accomplice to a centralized and increasingly powerful government?

This is a great question. Yes, I can think of some: the English media (the lapdog BBC comes to mind), the media across the Scandinavian countries, French media (A2 being the biggest example), and television channels in other countries.

But I get your point: it’s the American media’s unashamed self-praise as independent and objective that singles them out for special derision. The gubmint-paid anchorman on the A2 evening newscast would never try to sell anything so ridiculous.

The media has been a pravda arm of the DNC for over 100 years. The country (including Hollywood) was patriotic in the 40′s because Roosevelt had a D after his name. The Pentagon papers and Watergate happened because Nixon had a R after his name.

I’d really like to find a case where they went after a democrat, except that I think they went after Clinton and Monica Lewinsky simply to divert the public from the fact they they’d sold our aerospace technology to the Chinese.

The Co-Conspirator Clandestine Press (CCCP) has been a one way street for more than four decades. It wasn’t until the convergence of talk radio (the only outlet that gave an information-strangled nation an semi-mass outlet for truth), the internet and “pajama clad bloggers”, and then Fox News…was there any resistance army capable of at least slowing down the propaganda, distortion and lies.

People don’t realize how recent this all is. Fox News began in late 1996 to only 17 million cable viewers available universe. Rush Limbaugh did not broadcast nationally until 1988.

Most conservative political blogs that attracted any kind of audience did not do so until the 2000′s. Our own Glenn Reynolds started Instapundit in August, 2001. Our own Roger Simon did not open this site until 2004 and did not get the first round of funding until 2005.

To say that the “resistance” is still in its infancy compared to the entrenchment of the CCCPress would be a massive understatement.

To say that the manner in which the CCCPress reports is a one way street is to deny them the tactical brilliance it has taken for the traitors against truth to demolish and poison our information stream.

Not only are they whipped dogs, rolling over, fetching and humping the legs of their Fabian masters…they are trained attack dogs against any and all who resist the overthrow.

The fact that the NYTimes/DailyDuranty/MorningCockburn is willing to admit it beneath the thin veneer of mild and disingenuous protest is merely because the DurantyCockburn is part of the hyper-radical Soros wing that wants the overthrow to move faster, please.

This pro-Communist, anti-America rag has shown its true colors for decades for anyone that doesn’t have a red-green color blindness built into their DNA.

Whether its Friedman slobbering over Maoism or Duranty/Cogburn fawning over Stalinism or its giving away state secrets and national security leaks like they were passing out Halloween candy…this despicable, traitorous group is not merely a one way street, doing NO “reporting” that uncovers misdeeds on the left…it is a one way back alley, doing dirty deals and committing thuggery against American interests, the free market, capitalism and any conservative they can get their hands on.

If you aren’t with the resistance at this point, you are with the overthrow. And, that includes all the alphabet networks, the magazines, Soros sophistry blogs, hollywood and academia. It’s a formidable force for treason. It has a forty year head start. And exposing them and their plot ought to be the sole purpose of our being.

Consider that in speaking of “the Obama administration” you may want to ask what’s the the NYT editorial staff end and the and the Obama administration begins, as reporter Jason DeParle, who worked with Baquet at the Times-Picayune in New Orleans in the 1980s, is the spouse of Nancy-Anne DeParle, whose title is Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff in the Obama White House. The DeParles are not unique; there have been plenty of examples of this kind of politically incestuous relationships in Washington, but still …

Every time I read one of these “journalism is broken” pieces my hair lights on fire.

Journalism is not broken. Journalism in America in 2012 is now a full-fledged propaganda organ. And it’s not a propaganda organ that works for Republicans or Conservatives or Tea Party members. Journalism is a fully-in-the-tank for Liberals propaganda organ.

Stop with the “journalism is broken” bullshit. This implies that journalists are decent, fair-minded people who have momentarily lost their way and jeopardized the long-held standards of their industry because of their political and ideological bias. This is complete bullshit.

Journalists are evil propagators of evil who consciously and knowingly and willfully have decided to subvert any of the standards of their industry in order to “whore up” for Democrats and the Liberal agenda. They know what they are doing and they know that we know what they are doing and they know that they’re not going to pay any serious price.

And like the whores who patrol the streets at night outside the produce market in Bed-Stuy these journalist whores can’t toss themselves on their backs and raise their heels fast enough to accommodate the Liberal agenda on whose behalf they function as propagandists.

90% + of “journalists” are Democrats according to some surveys. Remember the way they behaved even under Bush 1 or Reagan? Is anyone really surprised they will lie, cheat and steal to carry Obama’s water?

“Perhaps the day he and others in this sadly compromised calling will find the nerve to be journalists again will arrive on about January 21, 2013 — but only if someone other than Barack Obama begins to occupy the White House.”

And why would I trust them on January 21? They can claim they’re ‘reformed’ journalists but I wouldn’t believe them if they did. Too much time has passed. They’ve lost all credibility. They would need to prove their worth by letting everything out BEFORE the incumbent D is defeated (and before his chance for victory has vaporized).
The tell-all books and articles later on will be ignored, as they deserve to be. Trust has been broken. It can’t be put back together.
It will take decades for American journalism to recover, provided it has the will. Perhaps it’s time to discard the veneer of ‘objectivity’. It’s become a lie and the accompanying sanctimony only deepens the distrust.

Journalism has been dead at the New York Times for years. They killed it, themselves. They took the freedom of action embodied in the “Times v. Sullivan” opinion and used it to destroy their own integrity.

We will soon begin to see the following phenomenon: A news story that says, “The candidate would not allow himself to be quoted for the record, but the gist of his remarks was …”, followed by a series of direct quotes that are not placed in quotation marks, thus giving the reporter plausible deniability.

This method, of course, will only be deployed against those individuals the reporter dislikes. In other words, Republicans.

Isn’t it interesting that the root of “candidate” is “candid”? Instead of “candidates”, we should be talking about “in-credibles”.

The so called Main Street Media is nothing of the sort. It has not been mainstream for a long time.

They are dying because people want to know what is going on, but must turn to alternative sources to find it. They don’t want to be lied to, scolded like children by pompous jerks, or lectured to by people who know less than they do.

On-air “reporters” get their talking points on their blackberries from the White House in real time, and dutifully report what they are told. They lie, under report, censor what is really going on, etc. Newspapers and television “news shows” all report the same “news” with the same pejoratives.

These “reporters” belong to organizations such as Center for Public Integrity and Pro Publica and not only neglect to mention their affiliation, they certainly won’t mention Soro’s funding of these organizations.

We must understand that they no longer report the news, nor represent the mainstream in any commonly understood fashion.

The so-called MSM is now properly defined as the:

*** MoP (Ministry of Propaganda) ***

They are no more than that. Goebbels would be proud.

This is especially troubling as the Founders understood the value of a free press and gave them special protections in the Constitution. They have abrogated their responsibilities to the country.

One cannot solve a problem unless the problem is properly defined and stated. Once everyone understands that what you see and hear from the MSM is nothing but propaganda that should be promptly and summarily dismissed, America will be on the road to recovery. I am personally surprised that anyone still watches MSM broadcasts and reads their drivel.

You’d think that journalists that are tired of jumping through hoops for “approval” to post stories about Obama and Romney would be more than happy to report on Gary Johnson who has no handlers and if he said it — well, it’s fair game. Print and run with it, boys.

No, journalists will continue to criticize and investiage Republicans and those on the social and political right, while ignoring things that would reflect poorly on Democrats and the left. The Ins and Outs may change, but the journalists will still be the same people and institutions with teh same biases and the same intention of ignoring facts and fairness in order to advance their preferences.

I don’t think this is “astounding” at all. The NYT has been an integral and key part of of the Obama team since day 1. That is when his campaign for president started, well before his election in 2008. They act as attack dog against his opponents and shills for his proposals. They glorify and glamorize both him and his wife. They do so while their Ombudsman mindlessly goes on TV and writes weekly columns proclaiming that the NYT is the “paper of record” in America. All they are doing here is trying to spin saying everybody does it. That may actually be true but it certainly isn’t astounding.

In my humble opinion, leftist rags like the New York Times committed first tend to commit treason; then suicide.

Making things even better, most MSNBC affiliates should take a page out of the Times and commit the most sincerest form of flattery. For free, I’d be glad to write up their obits and place them in the Washington Times.

The Senate could move anytime on S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012, and I hope you’ll contact your senators to urge them to oppose cloture right away. Although Senate leadership has tweaked the bill due to the massive outpouring of grassroots criticism they’ve received this past year over previous Internet legislation, S. 3414 will still be a rushed product, as both parties are negotiating final details – right before the vote. The American people deserve to know what’s in S. 3414 before their senators vote on further consideration, especially when it comes to an issue as important as our freedoms online. As it stands, S. 3414 would create yet another government bureaucracy (a “National Cybersecurity Council”), and it could guarantee companies engage in more invasions of our privacy.